JUDGMENT 1. This is a fourth bail application by the accused, Jal Singh convicted under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.200/- or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The earlier three bail applications were rejected on October 22, 1980, December 7, 1981 and November 20, 1982. Though we were not sitting in regular Division Bench for hearing such bail applications, but the office has listed this tail application before us as the last bail application was rejected by us on November 20, 1982. Each of us was sitting in a Single Bench today, but this Division Bench was constituted during lunch interval as the office considered it necessary to place this bail application for consideration before the same Bench which had earlier rejected the bail application. The office has placed reliance on an order of G. M. Lodha and G. K. Sharma JL., dated April 7, 1983 in D. B. Criminal Second Bail Application No. 235/83 in D. B. Criminal Appeal No. 175/82. 2. Mr. Tibrewal, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that no considered decision has been taken by any Bench of this Court on the interpretation of Rule 65 of Rajasthan High Court Rules and learned Members of the Bar are experiencing a great difficulty in placing a fresh bail application before the same learned. JL. who constituted (he earlier Bench at the time of rejecting the earlier bail application. We have perused the order of G.M. Lodha and G. K. Sharma JL., dated April 7, 1983, cited above and an order of Lodha and Bhargava JJ. reported in Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 1983 p. 222 and we are of the opinion that in both the aforesaid orders no reasons have been given while interpreting the provisions of Rule 65 and merely it has been observed that the subsequent bail application should be listed before the same Bench as provided under Rule 65 and the office has been directed to follow the above rule and to take appropriate steps to ensure its compliance in future. 3. Both, Mr. 3. Both, Mr. Tibrewal and the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that it was never the intention of Rule 65 that even if a fresh bail application was submitted under changed circumstances or on the happening of subsequent events, it was necessary to list such a bail application before the same learned Judges who had rejected the earlier bail application. It is also argued that in practice it is creating great hardship as it does not lie in the hands of the petitioner to constitute a Bench of the same learned Judges and many a time, the fresh bail applications are not put before the court for days together as the Bench of same learned Judge is not constituted. If the learned Judges are sitting in Single Bench there is no alternative except to constitute their Bench during lunch hours. It becomes difficult to make submissions during lunch hours due to paucity of time and all this procedure results into a denies of Justice to a petitioner whose bail application should be heard immediately. It is further submitted that in a particular matter, regular Bench, hearing criminal matters if felt necessary, may give a direction in that particular case to list the fresh bail application before the same Bench which had rejected the earlier bail application. However, this rule should not be adopted as matter of routine, even in cases where fresh bail application is filed on happening of subsequent events or change of circumstances. 4. In view of the above submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, we consider it necessary to interpret the true ambit and scope of Rule 65. In our view as no reasoning has been given in the two orders mentioned above, we are free to give our decision, and it would not be necessary to refer the case to a larger Bench. Rule 65 of the High Court Rules reads as under:- "Rule 65. Subsequent application on the same subject to be heard by the same Bench. - No application to the same effect or with the same object, as a previous application upon which a Bench has passed any order other then an order of reference to another Judge or Judges, shall except by way of appeal, ordinarily be heard by any other Bench. - No application to the same effect or with the same object, as a previous application upon which a Bench has passed any order other then an order of reference to another Judge or Judges, shall except by way of appeal, ordinarily be heard by any other Bench. The application when presented by or on behalf of the person by whom or on whose behalf such previous application was made, shall give the necessary particulars of such previous application, the nature and the date of the order passed thereon and the name or names of the Judge or Judges by whom such order was passed." 5. The title in the aforesaid rule speaks of an application on the same subject. However, in the main part of the rule it speaks of an application to the same effect or with the same subject. The bail applications are filed one after another in a pending appeal against conviction under Sec. 389 Cr. P.C., and also under 438. Cr. P. C. by a person apprehending arrest and under Sec. 439 Cr P. C. after arrest by the police. The fresh bail applications are filed on the basis of happening of subsequent events or changed circumstances due to lapse of time. In such cases it cannot be said that the subsequent application has been filed on the same subject or to the same effect or with the same object as a previous application upon which a Bench had passed any order. As is usually the case, the fresh applications are filed on the ground of some more witnesses having been examined by the trial court or due to illness or otherwise of the accused or some other important event having taken place entitling the accused for grant of bail and in such cases the fresh application cannot be said to have been filed to the same effect or with the same object. The Court takes into consideration the happening of subsequent events and changed circumstances and passes an appropriate order which may be entirely different to the order passed earlier. The court applies its mind afresh to the circumstances having come into existence during the intervening period and in such cases rule 65 can have no application. The Court takes into consideration the happening of subsequent events and changed circumstances and passes an appropriate order which may be entirely different to the order passed earlier. The court applies its mind afresh to the circumstances having come into existence during the intervening period and in such cases rule 65 can have no application. However, the situation may be different where exactly identical facts and ground are mentioned in the subsequent application and such cases may fall within the ambit of Rule 65. We may also mention that in rule 65 it has been mentioned that no subsequent application to the same effect or with the same object as a previous application shall ordinarily be heard by any other Bench. The words ordinarily used in this rule are significant. The office is not bound to list before the same Judge or Judges in spite of the fact that they are not available easily as sitting in different Bench or hearing cases other than criminal matters. As the bail application should be disposed of at the earliest and the non-availability of the same Judge or Judges is certainly an exceptional circumstances it would justify the office to list the subsequent application before the regular bench hearing such matters. We see force in the difficulty pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor that for several days the bail applications are not listed as the Judge or Judges who had passed an order on the previous application were not available. 6. Thus, in the view taken by us of Rule 65, we consider it just and proper that the present bail application should be placed for disposal before the regular Bench hearing such matters. *******